Retrospective banked serum/plasma samples from commercial vendors and blood centers; Routine clinical serology samples from hospital laboratories; Clinically diagnosed patient samples (primary, secondary, latent syphilis)
Retrospective clinical samples were used to evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the Syphilis Health Check test by comparing results against reference methods (RPR, TPPA, FTA-ABS, MHA-TP).
Retrospective Suspected and Known Positive Syphilis Samples; Retrospective analysis of banked samples
Patients with known syphilis status (primary, secondary, latent) and suspected syphilis; Sample Size: 412
RPR, TPPA, MHA-TP
Percent positive/negative agreement
Presumed Normal Population Study; Retrospective analysis of routine clinical samples
Presumed healthy normal population (ages 20-66) undergoing routine serology testing; Sample Size: 98; Number of Sites: Multiple hospital laboratories
RPR, TPPA, MHA-TP
Positivity rate and agreement
Indications for Use
Syphilis Health Check is a qualitative rapid membrane immunochromatographic assay for the detection of Treponema pallidum (syphilis) antibodies in human whole blood, serum or plasma. This product can be used as an initial screening test or in conjunction with a non-treponemal laboratory test and clinical findings, may aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection. This test is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors.
Device Story
Syphilis Health Check is a rapid, qualitative, membrane-based immunochromatographic assay for detecting anti-Treponema pallidum antibodies. The device uses immobilized recombinant treponemal antigens on a membrane. Patient samples (whole blood, serum, or plasma) are added to the sample well; human immunoglobulins bind to antigens, forming complexes. These complexes react with colloidal gold-conjugated Protein A and anti-human immunoglobulins to produce a visible pink-rose colored band. A separate control line confirms reagent function. The test is performed at the point-of-care or in clinical settings by trained technicians. Results are read visually by the healthcare provider. The output aids in the clinical diagnosis of syphilis infection when used alongside non-treponemal tests and patient clinical findings.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical performance was evaluated using 1,292 samples (880 prospective, 412 retrospective) and 164 clinically diagnosed samples. Compared to reference treponemal tests, the device showed 98.5% positive agreement (95% CI: 97.1-99.4%) and 97.3% negative agreement (95% CI: 95.9-98.4%). In clinically diagnosed populations (primary, secondary, latent), the device showed 100% agreement. Analytical studies included precision/reproducibility across three sites, interference testing (hemoglobin, bilirubin, lipids, etc.), and cross-reactivity panels (HIV, HCV, HBV, autoimmune markers).
Technological Characteristics
Rapid immunochromatographic membrane assay. Materials: recombinant treponemal antigens, colloidal gold-conjugated Protein A, anti-human immunoglobulins. Form factor: absorbent test device. Energy source: none (passive flow). Connectivity: none. Sterilization: not specified. Software: none.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the qualitative detection of Treponema pallidum antibodies in human whole blood, serum, or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection. Intended for use as an initial screening test or in conjunction with non-treponemal tests and clinical findings. Not for blood or plasma donor screening. Prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Treponema pallidum treponemal test reagents are devices that consist of the antigens, antisera and all control reagents (standardized reagents with which test results are compared) which are derived from treponemal sources and that are used in the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS), the Treponema pallidum immobilization test (T.P.I.), and other treponemal tests used to identify antibodies to Treponema pallidum directly from infecting treponemal organisms in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of syphilis caused by bacteria belonging to the genus Treponema and provides epidemiological information on syphilis.
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
K102400
B. Purpose for Submission:
To obtain a Substantial Equivalence determination for the Syphilis Health Check Treponemal Antibody Test
C. Measurand:
Antibodies to *Treponema pallidum* (T. pallidum)
D. Type of Test:
A qualitative rapid membrane immunochromatographic assay
E. Applicant:
Diagnostics Direct, LLC
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
Syphilis Health Check Treponemal Antibody Test; Rapid immunochromatographic membrane assay, *Treponema pallidum*
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR § 866.3830, *Treponema pallidum* treponemal test reagents
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
LIP - Enzyme linked immunoabsorption assay, *Treponema pallidum*
{1}
4. Panel:
Microbiology (83)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use:
Syphilis Health Check is a qualitative rapid membrane immunochromatographic assay for the detection of Treponema pallidum (syphilis) antibodies in human whole blood, serum or plasma. This product can be used as an initial screening test or in conjunction with a non-treponemal laboratory test and clinical findings to aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection. This test is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors.
2. Indications for use:
Syphilis Health Check is a qualitative rapid membrane immunochromatographic assay for the detection of Treponema pallidum (syphilis) antibodies in human whole blood, serum or plasma. This product can be used as an initial screening test or in conjunction with a non-treponemal laboratory test and clinical findings to aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection. This test is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors.
3. Special condition for use statement:
For prescription use only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Not applicable.
I. Device Description:
Syphilis Health Check Treponemal Antibody Test method employs a unique combination of anti-human immunoglobulins gold conjugate and highly purified TP recombinant proteins to specifically detect anti-TP antibodies.
2
{2}
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name:
- Trep-Chek Treponemal Antibody EIA
2. Predicate 510(k) number:
- K001552
1. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Intended Use | Syphilis Health Check is a qualitative rapid membrane immunochromatographic assay for the detection of Treponema pallidum (syphilis) antibodies in human whole blood, serum or plasma. This product can be used as an initial screening test or in conjunction with a non-treponemal laboratory test and clinical findings to aid in the diagnosis of syphilis infection. This test is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors. | The Phoenix Bio-Tech Corp. Syphilis Trep-Chek Test Kit is a confirmatory immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Treponema pallidum IgG antibodies in human serum or plasma. This product is not cleared (approved) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in screening blood or plasma donors. |
| Assay type | Enzyme labeled, immunoassay | Enzyme labeled, immunoassay |
| Analyte Measured | Human IgG | Human IgG |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Sample Dilution | 1:21 in SAVe Diluent | 1:20 in phosphate buffer based diluent |
| Detection Method | Fluorescent | Colorimetric |
{3}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Scale | Intra-Well Calibration determines a unit value for each sample from the regression curve | Calculate the index value of unknown samples by comparing their OD to the cut off OD |
| Sample Dilution | 1:21 in SAVe Diluent | 1:20 in phosphate buffer based diluent |
| Specimen Tested | Human Serum | Human Serum or plasma |
| Calibration | Includes Intra-Well Calibration that provides a separate calibration curve for every sample | Includes Calibrator (human serum) |
| Cut-Offs | Negative is < 100, Positive is > 120 and Equivocal is 100-120 AU/mL | Negative is <= 0.90, Positive is >= 1.10 and Equivocal is 0.90 - 1.09 |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced:
- CLSI EP07-A2: Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry
- CLSI EP5: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Clinical Chemistry Devices-Second Edition
- Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices, May 11, 2005
L. Test Principle:
Specific, recombinant treponemal antigens are immobilized on the membrane. Patient samples or controls are added to the sample well, followed by a buffer, and as the sample flows through the absorbent device, the human immunoglobulins bind to the antigens forming an antigen-antibody complex. The antigen-antibody complex further reacts with a unique combination of colloidal gold conjugated Protein A and anti-human immunoglobulins producing a pink-rose colored band that can be read visually indicating antibody is present in the patient's sample. A separate Control Line indicates reagents are functioning correctly.
{4}
M. Performance Characteristics:
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
To demonstrate the reproducibility of the Syphilis Health Check Treponemal Antibody Test, the assay was evaluated at three study sites using trained technicians for within-Run and between day reproducibility using a panel of pooled samples. Each testing site conducted reproducibility studies using a supplied panel ranging from non-reactive to highly reactive, i.e. one nonreactive, one high (borderline) nonreactive, one low (borderline) reactive, one moderate reactive, and two mid-high to high reactive in addition to the kit controls. Each site ran these panel member solutions for at least 10 days total spread throughout the study period. A second study included low (borderline) reactive and moderate reactive samples, each site ran these panel member solutions for at least 5 days, twice per day. Each site performed one Within-Run assay by each of the operators each run for 10 times on one day. The following testing results were obtained,
Intra-Run
Panel D (Borderline Reactive)
| | Positive | Negative | Expected | % Agree | Discrepant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 (2 operators) | 57 | 3 | 60 positive | 95.0 | 3 |
| Site 2 (2 operators) | 58 | 2 | 60 positive | 96.7 | 2 |
| In-house (2 operators) | 59 | 1 | 60 positive | 98.3 | 1 |
Panel E (Borderline Nonreactive)
| | Positive | Negative | Expected | % Agree | Discrepant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 | 1 | 59 | 60 negative | 98.3 | 1 |
| Site 2 | 2 | 58 | 60 negative | 96.7 | 2 |
| In-House | 0 | 60 | 60 negative | 100.0 | 0 |
Inter-Day (5 days)
Panel D (Borderline Reactive)
| | Positive | Negative | Expected | % Agree | Discrepant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 (2 operators) | 57 | 3 | 60 positive | 95.0 | 3 |
| Site 2 (2 operators) | 58 | 2 | 60 positive | 96.7 | 2 |
| In-house (2 operators) | 57 | 3 | 60 positive | 95.0 | 3 |
{5}
Panel E (Borderline Nonreactive)
| | Positive | Negative | Expected | % Agree | Discrepant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 | 2 | 58 | 60 negative | 96.7 | 2 |
| Site 2 | 2 | 58 | 60 negative | 96.7 | 2 |
| In-House | 1 | 59 | 60 negative | 98.3 | 1 |
Inter-Lot
Studies were performed to demonstrate the Inter-Lot assay reproducibility of Syphilis Health Check Treponemal Antibody Test. The Inter-Lot study used four dilutions of a positive pool and negative sera samples. These five samples were run in duplicate on 5 different lots to demonstrate lot-to-lot reproducibility run on the same day by the same technician.
The following table demonstrates the reproducibility of the Syphilis Health Check Treponemal Antibody Test over 5 lots of kits.
| Dilution | Results after 10 min. | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Expected results | Lot I | Lot II | Lot III | Lot IV | Lot V |
| Negative serum | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1/10^{4} | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1/10^{3} | +/- | +/- | +/- | +/- | +/- | +/- |
| 1/10^{2} | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 1/10 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Results from the reproducibility studies are acceptable.
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Not applicable.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Not applicable.
d. Detection limit:
Not applicable.
{6}
e. Analytical specificity:
Cross-Reactivity Study
To test for possible cross-reactivity, panels of samples were obtained to evaluate potential interference from different disease conditions confirmed positive and containing different concentrations of potentially cross-reactive antibodies and were analyzed with the Syphilis Health Check test. Out of 151 (138 were Males) prospectively collected drug users, 11 (7%) were syphilis positive by reference methods and Syphilis Health Check, with two additional samples positive for Syphilis Health Check. Two samples from Lyme disease and HSV showed a positive result with Syphilis Health Check but could not be confirmed. One sample each from CMV positive and heterophile positive patients were Syphilis Health Check positive, but non-reactive by reference methods. Two HPV patients were Syphilis Health Check positive with one confirmed by reference methods. Two co-infected Chlamydia/GC patients were Syphilis Health Check and one confirmed positive by TPPA. The number of disease condition categories and reactive results obtained is listed in the following table.
| Cross-reactor | Number | # positive by Syphilis Health Check | # positive by reference method(s) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Self-reported Drug Users | 151 | 13 | 11 |
| ANA Positive | 24 | 0 | |
| RF Positive | 40 | 0 | |
| U.S. Lyme Disease IgG & IgM | 25 | 1 | Not confirmed |
| HSV | 24 | 1 | Not confirmed |
| CMV | 10 | 2 | 1 |
| EBV | 21 | 0 | |
| HAV | 25 | 0 | |
| HIV 1 & 2 | 14 | 1 | 1 |
| HTLV | 14 | 1 | 1 |
| Heterophile | 32 | 1 | 0 |
| HCV | 24 | 1 | 1 |
| Anti-HBs | 25 | 2 | 2 |
| Other STD - GC, Chlamydia, HPV, Trichomonas, | 78 | 4 | 2 |
{7}
Syphilis Positive HIV / HCV / HBV Patients :
A series of 13 patients EDTA Plasma samples obtained from a blood center were identified as screened RPR positive in patients that were also confirmed positive for HIV, HCV and/or Hepatitis B virus. Three of these patients were further identified as previously testing positive for syphilis and treated at that time. All of the samples were tested with TPPA and Syphilis Health Check to evaluate syphilis reactivity. All 13 samples were positive for RPR, TPPA, and Syphilis Health Check.
To further evaluate the influence of HIV on Syphilis Health Check results, a series of 24 banked serum containing high levels of viral load for HIV were tested with Syphilis Health Check. The HIV positive patient samples were purchased from a commercial serum supplier that was known to be RPR and/or Treponema positive. The samples were tested by an outside lab with the Syphilis Health Check test to assess reactivity. Six of these samples were Nonreactive by RPR but reactive with TPHA. One sample was RPR positive, but TPHA nonreactive. All 24 samples were Syphilis Health Check Positive.
## Pregnant Women:
A series of sixty-nine (69) pregnant female samples were purchased from a vendor that had known trimester, age, and ethnicity. An additional set of 93 pregnant women serum samples were obtained from a commercial source that were identified as syphilis positive by RPR screening and further tested with TPPA and Syphilis Health Check. Age and trimester were known, but ethnicity was not identified. Three samples out of the 162 total samples were RPR low positive but nonreactive by the treponemal reference method.
Pregnant Women Summary
| | RPR | | | TPPA | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Pos | neg | Total | Pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | Pos | 91 | 0 | 91 | 94 | 0 | 94 |
| | Neg | 3 | 68 | 71 | 0 | 68 | 68 |
| | | | | | | | |
| | Total | 94 | 68 | 162 | 94 | 68 | 162 |
Percent Positive Agreement = 96.8% (95% C.I. = 91.0 - 99.3%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 96.2 - 100%)
Percent Negative Agreement = 100.0% (95% C.I. = 94.7 - 100%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 94.7 - 100%)
Percent Overall Agreement = 98.1% (95% C.I. = 94.7 - 99.6%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 97.7 - 100%)
{8}
The results obtained from the cross reactive study are acceptable.
## Interference Testing
Interference testing was conducted using serum. Concentrates of the compounds were prepared and diluted to multiple concentrations into eight sera with different levels of syphilis reactivity. The following results were obtained:
- Hemoglobin: No effect was observed up to 1000 mg/dL of hemoglobin;
- Bilirubin (total): No effect was observed up to 40 mg/dL of total bilirubin;
- Triglycerides: No effect was observed up to 3000 mg/dL of triglycerides.
- Cholesterol (total): No effect was observed up to 400 mg/dL of cholesterol
- Albumin: No effect was observed up to 1000 mg/dL of albumin
- Gamma-globulin: No effect as observed up to 5000 mg/dL of gamma-globulin
The results obtained from the interference study are acceptable.
## f. Assay cut-off:
The Master Cutoff of the assay was determined by calibrating against a panel of confirmed uninfected patient samples and borderline treponemal positive samples diluted to assess the imprecision around the cut-off of the assay. The samples obtained were commercially available serum "standardized" against the WHO Reference Material.
### Negative
One colored band appears in the control area.
### Positive
In addition to the control band, a distinguishable band also appears in the test area.
### Inconclusive
If there is no distinct color band visible in the test and control areas, the test is inconclusive. In this case, repeat the test.
9
{9}
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method Comparison with Predicate:
Not applicable.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable.
3. Clinical Studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
In order to evaluate the performance of the Syphilis Health Check test a series of 880 patient samples were obtained from prospective study sites and 412 frozen retrospective samples purchased from outside commercial vendors and blood centers. In addition, a series of 164 clinically diagnosed samples were obtained that were known primary, secondary, and latent both treated and untreated. The total of 1292 known retrospective samples (576) and prospectively collected (880) patient samples were used to demonstrate the performance of the Syphilis Health Check test to Non-treponemal RPR and other treponemal tests.
Prospective Studies were conducted at five clinical study sites which compared the Syphilis Health Check to RPR, a non-treponemal test, and treponemal tests such as TPPA, TPHA, or ELISA, using specimens from patients coming into four STD clinics and one hospital clinic. The patients enrolled in the study were identified by medical associates as suspected positive for syphilis and exhibiting symptoms.
Initial evaluations were performed at a university clinic and a hospital clinic to assess the performance of the Syphilis Health-Check test versus RPR and their reference treponemal tests - FTA and TPHA. Only gender and age were collected from these patients. A more comprehensive study was performed at three study sites to collect further patient history information in order to identify a broader range of STD related patients. The information and data collected from these sites is presented below.
The Syphilis Health Check assay demonstrated 95.6% and 98.5% Percent Positive Agreement versus the non-treponemal test and treponemal tests, respectively, and 90.5% and 97.3% Percent Negative
10
{10}
Agreement, respectively.
## Cumulative Comparison Results
The results obtained for the prospective and retrospective samples yields the following results compared to Non-treponemal RPR and treponemal tests.
Total Non-Treponemal Comparison - total combined sample results are
RPR - Non-Treponemal
| | Positive | Negative | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Syphilis Health Check | | | |
| Positive | 473 | 76 | 549 |
| Negative | 22 | 721 | 743 |
| Total | 495 | 797 | 1292 |
Percent Positive Agreement: $473 / 495 = 95.6\%$ (95% C.I. = 93.4 - 97.2%)
Percent Negative Agreement: $721 / 797 = 90.5\%$ (95% C.I. = 88.2 - 92.4%)
Percent Overall Agreement: $1194 / 1292 = 92.4\%$ (95% C.I. = 90.8 - 93.8%)
presented from the 5 prospective sites and the frozen known and suspected positive samples.
{11}
Total Treponemal Comparison - total combined sample results are presented from the 5 sites and the frozen known and suspected positive samples
Reference Treponemal tests
| Syphilis Health Check | | Positive | Negative | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Positive | 531 | 20 | 551 |
| | Negative | 8 | 733 | 741 |
| | Total | 539 | 753 | 1292 |
Percent Positive Agreement: $531 / 539 = 98.5\%$ (95% C.I. = 997.1 - 99.4%)
Percent Negative Agreement: $733 / 753 = 97.3\%$ (95% C.I. = 95.9 - 98.4%)
Percent Overall Agreement: $1264 / 1292 = 97.8\%$ (95% C.I. = 96.9 - 98.6%)
# PROSPECTIVE STUDIES
University Clinic site
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | Neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | Pos | 32 | 1 | 33 |
| | Neg | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| | | | | |
| | Total | 32 | 7 | 39 |
| FTA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | Neg | Total |
| 27 | 6 | 33 |
| 0 | 6 | 6 |
| | | |
| 27 | 12 | 39 |
{12}
Percent Positive Agreement = 100.0% (95% C.I. = 89.1 - 100%) 100% (95% C.I. = 87.2 - 100%)
Percent Negative Agreement = 85.7% (95% C.I. = 42.1 - 99.6%) 50.0% (95% C.I. = 21.1 - 78.9%)
Percent Overall Agreement = 97.4% (95% C.I. = 86.5 - 99.9%) 84.6% (95% C.I. = 69.5 - 94.1%)
## Hospital Clinic site
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | Pos | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| | Neg | 0 | 44 | 44 |
| | | | | |
| | Total | 3 | 47 | 50 |
| TPHA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | Neg | Total |
| 6 | 0 | |
| 0 | 44 | |
| | | |
| 6 | 44 | 50 |
Percent Positive Agreement = 100.0% (95% C.I. = 29.2 - 100%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 54.1 - 100%)
Percent Negative Agreement = 93.6% (95% C.I. = 82.5 - 98.7%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 92.0 - 100%)
Percent Overall Agreement = 94.0% (95% C.I. = 83.5 - 98.7%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 92.9 - 100%)
## Study Site 1
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | pos | 13 | 15 | 28 |
| | neg | 2 | 370 | 372 |
| | | | | |
| | Total | 15 | 385 | 400 |
| TPPA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | Neg | Total |
| 21 | 8 | 29 |
| 6 | 365 | 371 |
| | | |
| 27 | 373 | 400 |
Percent Positive Agreement = 86.7% (95% C.I. = 59.5 - 98.3) 77.8% (95% C.I. = 57.7 - 91.4)
Percent Negative Agreement = 96.1% (95% C.I. = 93.7 - 97.8) 97.9% (95% C.I. = 95.8 - 99.1)
Percent Overall Agreement = 95.8% (95% C.I. = 93.3 - 97.5) 96.5% (95% C.I. = 94.2 - 98.1)
It should be noted that two (2) of the false negative samples versus TPPA were only positive for TPPA but negative with the other two reference methods (RPR and FTA). Three samples were positive for TPPA and FTA, but negative for Syphilis Health Check and RPR.
13
{13}
14
# Study Site 2
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | Pos | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| | Neg | 0 | 85 | 85 |
| | | | | |
| | Total | 2 | 87 | 89 |
| TPPA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | neg | Total |
| 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 0 | 85 | 85 |
| | | |
| 4 | 85 | 89 |
Percent Positive Agreement = 100.0% (95% C.I. = 15.8 - 100) 39.8 - 100%
Percent Negative Agreement = 97.7% (95% C.I. = 91.9 - 99.7) 95.8 - 100%
Percent Overall Agreement = 97.8% (95% C.I. = 92.1 - 100) 95.9 - 100%
100.0% (95% C.I. =
100.0% (95% C.I. =
100.0% (95% C.I. =
# Study Site 3
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | pos | 6 | 4 | 10 |
| | neg | 0 | 195 | 195 |
| | | | | |
| | Total | 6 | 199 | 205 |
| EIA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | neg | Total |
| 9 | 2 | 11 |
| 1 | 193 | 194 |
| | | |
| 10 | 195 | 205 |
P P A = 100.0% (95% C.I. = 54.1 - 100)
P N A = 98.0% (95% C.I. = 94.9 - 99.4)
P O A = 98.0% (95% C.I. = 95.1 - 99.5)
90.0% (95% C.I. = 55.5 - 99.7%)
99.0% (95% C.I. = 96.3 - 99.9%)
98.5% (95% C.I. = 95.8 - 99.7%)
# RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES
## Suspected and Known Positive Syphilis Samples
A series of 412 total samples were purchased from serum and blood center suppliers consisting of 149 banked RPR and treponemal reactive serum samples, 28 serum samples that were requested to be Primary or Secondary Patients, treated or untreated, but exhibiting a Syphilitic-type lesion or rash from a serum supplier, and 138 frozen serum and plasma samples from a blood center. The samples were found to be RPR and treponemal reactive and having mixed titers. Another series of 97 samples being highly suspected of having a syphilis infection were obtained from a serum supplier that were obtained from various laboratories around the U.S., and were submitted to the laboratories for testing. The samples were tested by RPR, TPPA, and MHA-TP as reference methods for comparison to Syphilis Health Check test.
{14}
The samples were further tested by an outside laboratory for TPPA titer and Syphilis Health Check results. Nineteen samples were found to be Negative for TPPA and Syphilis Health Check and Reactive RPR, four samples were negative by TPPA, but Positive by Syphilis Health Check and RPR, one sample was Syphilis Health Check negative and positive RPR and TPPA, and one sample was RPR neg but TPPA and Syphilis Health Check positive. The remaining two hundred eighty-nine samples remained Positive by all four methods. In the Suspected Positive patients two samples were negative with Syphilis Health Check, with one sample low reactive with RPR, and both samples Non-Reactive with TPHA. The results of the testing are shown below.
Known Positives
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | pos | 293 | 1 | 294 |
| | neg | 20 | 1 | 21 |
| | Total | 313 | 2 | 315 |
| TPPA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | neg | Total |
| 290 | 4 | 294 |
| 1 | 20 | 21 |
| 291 | 24 | 315 |
Percent Positive Agreement = 93.4% (95%C.I. = 89.8 - 96.0%) 99.6%
(95%C.I. = 97.9 - 100.0%)
Percent Negative Agreement = 100.0% (95%C.I. = 100%)
85.7% (95%C.I. = 63.7 - 97.0%)
Percent Overall Agreement = 93.4% (95%C.I. = 89.8 - 96.0%)
98.6% (95%C.I. = 96.5 - 99.6%)
Suspected Positive
| | RPR | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | pos | neg | Total |
| Syphilis Health Check | pos | 62 | 25 | 87 |
| | neg | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| | | | | |
| | Total | 62 | 35 | 97 |
| TPHA | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| pos | neg | Total |
| 87 | 0 | 87 |
| 0 | 10 | 10 |
| | | |
| 87 | 10 | 97 |
| MHTP | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Pos | neg | Total |
| 87 | 0 | 87 |
| 0 | 10 | 10 |
| | | |
| 87 | 10 | 97 |
PPA = 100.0% (95% C.I. = 94.2 - 100%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 95.8 - 100%) 100.0%
(95% C.I. = 95.8 - 100%)
PNA = 28.6% (95% C.I. = 14.6 - 46.3%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 69.2 - 100%) 100.0%
(95% C.I. = 69.2 - 100%)
POA = 74.2% (95% C.I. = 64.3 - 82.6%) 100.0% (95% C.I. = 96.3 - 100%)
100.0% (95% C.I. = 96.3 - 100%)
Clinically Diagnosed
A panel of one hundred sixty-four (164) well-characterized clinically diagnosed serum samples from treated and untreated patients with primary, secondary, and latent syphilis infections were obtained from a clinic serving a
{15}
population of individuals with a variety of infectious diseases. The samples were tested with reference assay tests for RPR, TPPA, and FTA-ABS. The samples were then tested with Syphilis Health Check and the results are summarized below.
| Known Clinical Status | | RPR | TPPA | FTA-ABS | Syphilis Health Check | No. | % Agree -ment | 95% C.I. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Untreated | Primary | React | React | React | React | 23 | 100 | 85.2 - 100% |
| | Secondary | React | React | React | React | 25 | 100 | 86.3 - 100% |
| | Latent | React | React | React | React | 22 | 100 | 84.6 - 100% |
| | | NR | React | React | React | 3 | 100 | 29.2 - 100% |
| Treated | Primary | React | React | React | React | 28 | 100 | 87.8 - 100% |
| | Secondary | React | React | React | React | 26 | 100 | 86.8 - 100% |
| | Latent | React | React | React | React | 18 | 100 | 81.5 - 100% |
| | | NR | React | React | React | 19 | 100 | 82.4 - 100% |
| | | | | | Total | 164 | 100 | 97.8 - 100% |
The results obtained from the clinical study appear to be acceptable.
b. Clinical Specificity
See section M.3.a
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected Values/Reference Range:
To assess the expected values (normal range) of the Syphilis Health Check test a series of ninety-eight samples were obtained from various hospital laboratories in different U.S. geographical locations. The samples came from a general "presumed" healthy normal population (ages 20 - 66 yrs) whose serum or plasma were collected by hospital laboratories for routine serology testing, not related to STD.
All of the samples were tested with RPR, TPPA and Syphilis Health Check tests. Two samples were found positive by the treponemal tests with both
{16}
samples non-reactive with RPR. These 2 samples were confirmed with MHA-TP.
The testing of a presumed normal population showed an overall agreement of 100% for the Syphilis Health Check test. Therefore from this study of ninety-eight presumed normal samples, two were confirmed positive resulting in a 2% positivity rate.
In a prospectively collected population of drug users visiting STD clinics, of 138 males and 13 females (ages 18 - 61 yrs), thirteen (8.6%) were found to be Syphilis Health Check test positive with eleven of those also reference method positive.
In a series of 69 pregnant women, ages 20 - 40 yrs, that were tested for routine screening, one sample (1.4%) was found to be Syphilis Health Check positive and confirmed by reference methods.
Eight hundred eighty (880) patients were prospectively collected in a population of individuals visiting STD and hospital clinics and POC sites complaining and/or exhibiting signs and symptoms of STD infections, ages 16 - 81 yrs, and having 53% to 47% male to female ratio. A range of 3% - 6% of the patients identified as suspected as having syphilis were found positive by Syphilis Health Check and yielded a Percent positive agreement to RPR of 98.3% and 95.7% to treponemal tests. Percent Negative Agreement to RPR and Treponemal test was 93.4% and 97.8%, respectively. Overall Agreement to RPR and Treponemal tests was 94.1% and 97.4%, respectively.
These results are consistent with published rates for prevalence of antibody in the adult population. Prevalence may vary depending on a variety of factors such as geography, age, socio-economic status, ethnic background, type of test employed, specimen collection and handling procedures, clinical and epidemiological history.
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
17
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.